Christianity was not founded by Jesus. It was founded by Paul. Given that his conversion has been historically dated at 31 ce to 36 ce, there is no chance at all that any of the books of the New Testament had been written at that time, or even by the time of his death in 67 ce. The earliest, Mark, was written in 70 ce. That means any references Paul made to religious writings (Scripture) could only have referred to the Old Testament, the Jewish Torah. So 2 Timothy 3:16 could only have been referring to that, and not to the unwritten Gospels.

By the way, holybuckets, you ignored my earlier post. I would appreciate a reply.

Thanks jaimehlers,I did not ignore your last post, I simply do not understand the correlation between obeying archaic Jewish laws and being a Christian today. I guess it's a good thing I don't like shellfish because I can't eat it anyway? Right?

You are correct, Paul made references to many OT writings, after all, he was a Jew, and a very well trained Jew.I know atheists do not believe this, but it is simple. The OT prophesied the coming Messiah. Christians believe that Jesus is that Messiah, the Jews do not.

Again you miss the point. As a Christian, I do not have to be familiar with OT law. I also do not have to worry about going to hell because of a misunderstanding. This is not the way Christianity works, and I challenge you to find any reputable pastor and/or scholar to agree with your point.

This sounds very much like you're saying that you're unfamilar with the bible--or at least the old testament part of it. Is that right? It strikes me as very troublesome that you base your beliefs on the contents of a book, but don't bother to read it. Sort of like being a Harry Potter fan, but never bothering to read the books or watch the films.

Quote

Seriously, as a Christian, I find most of your arguments senseless. I actually got the idea for the thread after hearing Bill Maher say something like: "your a Christian, hey if you see your neighbor working on Sunday, kill him." You must admit, this is asinine. Is this the best argument he has? What does this have to do with Jesus rising form the dead?

Oh, I agree, the idea is asinine. But guess what? It's also in the bible. You're familair with the fourth commandent, right? "Thou shall not work on the sabbath day". The bible also says to kill those that works on the sabbath day. The bible also has a story about someone that picked up sticks on the sabbath day, and got stoned to death, because of it (under god's direct orders). Were you aware of those things? Based on your replies thus far, I'm guessing you weren't.

Quote

Also on this site, atheists have asked me about shellfish. Again, what is your point? I think it's a foolish argument and does not make atheists appear to be forthright debaters.

Eating shellfish is forbidden, according to the bible. Were you not aware of that? Again, I'm guessing that you weren't.

Right now, I'm guessing that either you're ignorance of certain parts of the bible, or that you pick and choose the parts that you like. If you didn't know that those parts existed, then you really need to start reading that book. If you pick and choose, then your morality doesn't come from god (there's a reason why the term "cafeteria christian" exists).

Quote

Your morality argument is just as bad. "What kind of morality do you have?" I don't know, what kind do you have? What kind does he have? Again, it's an atheistic game you play- admit it.

What makes you think I'm playing an "atheistic game"? (whatever that is) I asked you a question, you didn't know how to answer it, so there's not much I do with that (at least, not much other than "look it up").

Aaron123,Let me make this real simple for you. The Jewish religion and the Christian religion are two different religions. I realize part of being a new atheist is to try to blow up an argument and disturb it's contents as much as possible; back people in a corner because you have no logical argument of your own. I get that! To review: two different religions.... the Christian does not live by the Law of the Torah. There are several Bible verses that point his out.Romans 6:14- For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.Galatians 3:11- Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.Galatians 3:23-25- Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.Galatians 3:1-3 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Colossians 2:16-171Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Aaron123,Let me make this real simple for you. The Jewish religion and the Christian religion are two different religions. I realize part of being a new atheist is to try to blow up an argument and disturb it's contents as much as possible; back people in a corner because you have no logical argument of your own. I get that! To review: two different religions.... the Christian does not live by the Law of the Torah. There are several Bible verses that point his out.Romans 6:14- For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.Galatians 3:11- Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.Galatians 3:23-25- Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.Galatians 3:1-3 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Colossians 2:16-171Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

I really do not know how much more clearer I can be.

You could start by telling us why we should believe Paul, who never saw Jesus other than as a result of what was probably frontal lobe epilepsy.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Aaron123,Let me make this real simple for you. The Jewish religion and the Christian religion are two different religions. I realize part of being a new atheist is to try to blow up an argument and disturb it's contents as much as possible; back people in a corner because you have no logical argument of your own. I get that! To review: two different religions.... the Christian does not live by the Law of the Torah. There are several Bible verses that point his out.Romans 6:14- For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.Galatians 3:11- Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.Galatians 3:23-25- Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.Galatians 3:1-3 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Colossians 2:16-171Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

I really do not know how much more clearer I can be.

And I am sure there are hundreds of Bible verses that direct you to do the opposite of your posting,and that you are BOUND to "God's" old rules.....after all he is God and HIS OT does not become irrelevant just because you found a few verses that say otherwise

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

The separation of the same religion(any religion) is easy. Every religion on the planet has zealots,who take every word of their holy books as divine and interpret them as such. Fundamentalists who are like zealots,with their own interpretations. Moderates who interpret the holy books however they want. Then you have people who pretend to be religious,but are not really.

Christianity is just a break off sect of the Jewish religion. You have a group of Jews who don't really like the rules so they invent a messiah and create new rules to live by. Being associated to the Jewish God is the big problem for them because they need to circumvent the old rules. They do this in a haphazard manner with stuff that contradicts God and his OT.......now you (holyBuckets ) are left here trying to tie these contradictions together with single verses that contradict each other

You are failing miserably.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Aaron123,Let me make this real simple for you. The Jewish religion and the Christian religion are two different religions.

Technically, you're correct on this point, but at the same time, they share the same religious book. So I don't think it's invalid to ask about old testament laws. I mean, lots of christains go on about the Ten Commandments, and the stuffs against gay people. If they think those things still apply, then there's no reason why the rest isn't fair game. Unless you think the Ten Commandments doesn't apply anymore...

Quote

I realize part of being a new atheist is to try to blow up an argument and disturb it's contents as much as possible; back people in a corner because you have no logical argument of your own. I get that!

I've been an atheist for over five years now. I don't think that counts as being "new". (unless your idea of "new" is "under 10 years" or somethingsuch)

Quote

To review: two different religions.... the Christian does not live by the Law of the Torah. There are several Bible verses that point his out.Romans 6:14- For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.Galatians 3:11- Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.Galatians 3:23-25- Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.Galatians 3:1-3 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Colossians 2:16-171Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

If the old testament is junk (as you seem to be implying), then why even have it in the bible at all? Seems like it would be a lot less effort to leave it out (think of all the printing paper that could be saved!). Right now, it sounds like that stuff is just there to pad out an otherwise thin book (I know that's not what you're trying to say, but that's what coming across)

Quote

I really do not know how much more clearer I can be.

Right now, I do wonder how much awareness you have about the old testament. It sounded like you were unfamilar with the laws about shellfish and working on the sabbath day. Is that correct? I'm not sure, but it is the impression I got from your post. Again, I can't help but think you need to read the bible. That is not intended to insult or upset you. It is meant as genuine advice.

Whoa...wait just a minute young man. Haven't you already used your quota of Potter analogies?

I've noticed that Harry Potter analogies fulfill the role of the car analogies used so often on sites like slashdot.org.

I've always dreamed of the car analogy drinking game for tech sites; have random comments flash up on a screen, and every time a car analogy is made, everyone takes a drink. We may be able to do something similar here. I suspect that the argumentation on this site would become...unique...once such a game is engaged.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Thanks jaimehlers,I did not ignore your last post, I simply do not understand the correlation between obeying archaic Jewish laws and being a Christian today.

Why do you think they're archaic? I know there's at least a couple places in the Gospels where Jesus stated he was not there to take away any part of the existing laws that Jews lived under. And a large number of Jews still obey those laws today. So you can't really claim that they're 'archaic'. What you mean is that Christians don't abide by those laws, which is not the same thing.

I excised the tongue-in-cheek about not eating shellfish, as I don't think it was particularly relevant to the conversation.

Quote from: holybuckets

You are correct, Paul made references to many OT writings, after all, he was a Jew, and a very well trained Jew.

Indeed. Paul, the founder of Christianity, was a Jew. And he very specifically referred to the Old Testament writings with 2 Timothy 3:16.

Quote from: holybuckets

I know atheists do not believe this, but it is simple. The OT prophesied the coming Messiah. Christians believe that Jesus is that Messiah, the Jews do not.

Which in no way explains why the Jewish laws are archaic or irrelevant to Christians.

What actually happened, of course, is that Christians threw away most of the Jewish laws when mainstream Judaism rejected them, and then rationalized it by claiming that God released humanity from those obligations once Jesus went through his "passion play". That, and they were more interested in getting converts - something that Jews were basically uninterested in - and the best way to get converts was to not require them to follow hundreds of laws, many of which prescribed death or severe ritual punishments, but instead to incorporate elements of their own religious beliefs into them.

A similar thing happened during the Protestant Reformation, which rejected Catholic laws and customs in favor of its own interpretations of things, rationalizing away the differences to justify changing things. But it isn't something that they can ignore or get around with sophistry, as you're trying to do here. Christians may not accept that Jewish law holds on them, and Protestants may not accept that Catholic canon holds on them, but it only works if people accept that the differences are meaningful.

What you don't understand, holybuckets, is that to atheists (and to skeptics/agnostics to a somewhat lesser degree), the differences between Jews, Catholics, Protestants, name your religion and sect, are pretty much meaningless. It's all people coming up with ways to justify their own opinions as fact on things they can't prove in the first place. It's all people trying to claim authority on things that may well be imaginary in the first place. And it's only now, thousands of years after the first religion was invented, that we have people seriously starting to question the whole concept of religion rather than blindly accepting it (and fighting other people over having the 'wrong' religion).

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

The Laws of Moses or the Torah Laws are found mostly in the first five books of the Old Testament. Laws like: it's a sin to eat shellfish (Leviticus 11:12,Deuteronomy 14:10); or an uncircumcised Kohen must not eat Terumah (Exodus 12:48). There are many more examples and even the Jews admit these laws do not apply anymore. The Jews claim that since the destruction of the second Temple, many of the laws have gone away (their words (Jews) not mine). But yet atheists continue to “beat the dead horse” claiming that the Bible is NOT true and there is NO God and cite these outdated laws as a source of reference. Why?

1. To show that the vast majority of the Bible was written with political motivation, not historical or spiritual. Yes, this applies to the NT as well. Those laws are the low-hanging fruit for examples of this, but that in no way makes the criticism of said laws invalid.

2. You'll find that more times than not, when "we atheists" tote out these examples, it's in response to someone claiming the bible's inerrancy, or wanting to post the 10 commandments in a public building.

3. They really can't be used to show that there is no god...only that said god did not write or inspire them. You'll find that most of the arguments for the Christian god's non-existence are based on the NT and/or general philosophy.

Out of curiosity, why does it bother you that we "beat the dead horse" of inane OT laws if they don't apply to you anyway? You seem to be taking up the defense of a position you don't hold.

Logged

He never pays attention, he always knows the answer, and he can never tell you how he knows. We can't keep thrashing him. He is a bad example to the other pupils. There's no educating a smart boy.-– Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

Seppuke,Can you please tell me when Christianity began? By whom? I would like your opinion.Thanks

After Christ's death, exactly when? I don't know. Wasn't it supposed to have been started by St Paul? My memory is a bit hazey on the details. Christ was a Jew of course and his disciples were themselves Jews. But of course Christians believe Jesus to be the son of God and favour the teachings of Jesus Christ and they accept his teachings to be true, as to what those teachings mean, well, it varies depending on who you ask.

I'm not sure how your question is relevent to my points. If it's about the whole Jew/Christian thing, well for many Christians the old law is still relevent, Jesus on many accounts refers to it and has even been found suggesting the old law exists or is still relevent. One example is where Jesus says he's not come to abolish the old law but to enforce it. Some Christians view Jesus as the 'new way' whilst others view him as the son sent to earth to bring his law back to the people and to save them from sinning.

I'll get you a couple of quotes from the man, perhaps this will answer why I refer to the Laws of Moses and Torah law:

Quote from: Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."

Quote from: Luke 16:17

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."

Quote from: 2 Timothy 3:16

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."

Quote from: John 7:19

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law"

One teaching I find kinda ironic:

Quote from: 2 Peter 20-21

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God."

And yet there's an insane number of interpretations out there.

Once upon a time, I believed the Old Testament was the old way and the New Testament was the new way and this actually made me think that the bible wasn't necessarily all bad and that people were just twisting words for their own advantage, maybe selfish Christians with their own ulterior motives. But my misconceptions were kinda taken away because I came across Christians who believe the Old Testament law to be relevant to New Testament Law and feel using both New and Old Testament law is the right Christian thing to do. Jesus criticised the Jews for being hypocrites and not obeying the old law, not all Christians agree with that, but some do and they've got the quotes to back themselves, here is an example of Jesus criticising the teachers of the law of being hypocrites for not following the command of God and Jesus refers directly to a rather dark and bloody teaching from Mosiac law.

Quote from: Matthew 15

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’”

I have seen it claimed that Jesus is correcting some of Moses' law, but in the above you can clearly see Jesus is referring to one of Moses' laws as the law of God. There are other quotes to suggest it. So really and truly, I don't think it's so ridiculous to use the Laws of Moses and the Torah law when talking about Christianity, many Christians do it themselves. It's not just sceptics trying to refute the bible.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

I'm going to presume that holybuckets has walked away from this particular thread but I'll still bite.....I can only speak for myself as undoubtedly there are a myriad of reasons people refer to the Mosaic Laws in order to build a case against Christianity. I can only speak for myself.As an ex-fundy, evangelical I was steeped in the belief of the inerrancy of the bible even to the point of young earth creationism (hell, I had a subscription to Creation Science magazine )What this means, perhaps more than many of the regular contributors, is that I understand the principles that underpin Christianity and why it believes what it does. And believe me it is utterly and unequivocally built upon the OT. I'll endeavour to keep this short (& simple....)*God creates mankind*Mankind disobeys God, get expelled from paradise to live & die in sin*God, through the Mosaic covenant, establishes the laws by which his chosen people, the Hebrews, will live (including the various punishments that are so often touted in these forums - stoning for wearing different cloths, picking up sticks, speaking back to your parents, forcing rapees to marry the rapist etc)*Those who transgressed (& weren't summarily executed) were required to provide a covering for their sins through the sacrifice of various animals - doves, lambs, bulls etc depending on the nature & severity of their crime. This sacrifice was only a temporary covering and had to be repeated. It's all there - Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy* The sacrifice of Christ was just this - a covering of man's sins for all time. Hence the term Lamb of God, as well the covering of the blood at Passover to stop the wrath of God and so forth* So when a Christian refers to the new dispensation of Grace under Christ they are NOT in fact stating that the old laws have been done away with but that they were fulfilled in Christ's perfection, which is the only reason his sacrifice on the cross is sufficient to cover the sins of mankind (refer to Christ specifically stating that "not one jot or tittle of the Law would be changed")* Therefore the all loving, omniscient and omnipotent saviour that you proclaim as Lord is the EMBODIMENT of the hideous, brutal, savage, homophobic, misogynistic, genocidal, infanticidal laws laid down by bronze age sheepherders as they wandered around the Sinai desert.QED (thus it is proven): without the OT you do not have the concept of sin & separation from Jehovah. No separation leads to no need to reconcile a fallen creation with its creator and ultimately no need for Christ to die on the cross. So holybuckets do you now understand why some of us point out the horrific nature of the Mosaic Laws? Anyone who tries to remove the OT from consideration completely undercuts the most fundamental rationale behind Christianity. We clear?

The Laws of Moses or the Torah Laws are found mostly in the first five books of the Old Testament. Laws like: it's a sin to eat shellfish (Leviticus 11:12,Deuteronomy 14:10); or an uncircumcised Kohen must not eat Terumah (Exodus 12:48). There are many more examples and even the Jews admit these laws do not apply anymore. The Jews claim that since the destruction of the second Temple, many of the laws have gone away (their words (Jews) not mine). But yet atheists continue to “beat the dead horse” claiming that the Bible is NOT true and there is NO God and cite these outdated laws as a source of reference. Why?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Mitzvothttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Commandments

Didn't Jesus say in Matthew something to the effect of, "I did not come to abolish the old law but to fulfill it."

Which tells me: Christians have to obey what is in the Old Testament just as much as in the New Testament. But let's say they don't: then remove all the damn 10 Commandment plaques or what not from all the damn buildings in the US!

Until the last point, an excellent summation of Christianity and its relationship to the OT.

Have you ever looked upon the acts written of in the OT as evidence that God really and truly cannot dwell with sin?

Also, on what basis, other than being told He did, did you believe God was real?

Can we assume that this quote is what you disagree with?

Quote

...hideous, brutal, savage, homophobic, misogynistic, genocidal, infanticidal laws laid down by bronze age sheepherders as they wandered around the Sinai desert

If so, we're all ears as to how you justify the actions of YHWH in the OT as anything other than what was quoted above. For example, how is killing all humans in a flood NOT genocidal? How is sending an army to slaughter babies NOT infanticidal? How is sending two bears to slaughter 42 children NOT brutal?

Have you ever looked upon the acts written of in the OT as evidence that God really and truly cannot dwell with sin?

Sin seems such a tawdry and petty thing for a God to worry about. Why wouldn't God be able to dwell with sin? He created it. He's part of it. He's omnipotent and omniscient. He has to dwell with sin. To him, it's just atoms ticking over.

There are two good reasons for God not to hang out with us(1) it's all part of a mysterious big plan, and God can't show himself to anything material, until we evolve to star sprites, or whatever(2) it's an arbitrary rule he made up, like in Star Trek, where they have the prime directive.

If God cannot really and truly dwell with sin, then he could send angels and other things that could dwell with sin. He could also text us.

Otherwise, it's mainly about Theists inventing reasons for why they have no repeatable evidence.

Q: Why does God refuse to dwell with us?A: It's either because he doesn't exist, or some arbitrary reason I pull out of my hat, and supply no evidence for.

Maybe God cannot dwell with us, because he has a bad case of acne, and is embarrassed to show us.

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Until the last point, an excellent summation of Christianity and its relationship to the OT.

Have you ever looked upon the acts written of in the OT as evidence that God really and truly cannot dwell with sin?

Also, on what basis, other than being told He did, did you believe God was real?

Can we assume that this quote is what you disagree with?

Quote

...hideous, brutal, savage, homophobic, misogynistic, genocidal, infanticidal laws laid down by bronze age sheepherders as they wandered around the Sinai desert

If so, we're all ears as to how you justify the actions of YHWH in the OT as anything other than what was quoted above. For example, how is killing all humans in a flood NOT genocidal? How is sending an army to slaughter babies NOT infanticidal? How is sending two bears to slaughter 42 children NOT brutal?

These are not anything if Goddidit,because he has a reason as absurd as it is. God can do whatever he wants without it being sinful or evil in nature. Killing everything he deems fit to is not considered evil by Christians.

Of course the easy explanation is God killed nobody in a flood,because he does not exist. As there is not any real evidence to back up any of the claims.

The people who wrote the NT were not eyewitness to anything done by a messiah,if he even existed.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

@Magicmiles - I think you've skipped over or missed the crux of my post. I wasn't even referring to the various acts of genocide, murder, rape, human sacrifice and the like.

My point was that Christ didn't replace or nullify the Law. He needed to fulfill it. If he didn't his death achieved nothing. That's why God needed to incarnate himself as a man as only he was capable of meeting the impossile standards that he himself had set (all have sinned, none are righteous - except for Job, Abraham, Lot & Noah but we won't go there).

So having come to earth as a man and fulfilled the law to in order that he might be able to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself he not only condones the killing, the maiming the subjugation of women, slavery and other acts of brutality found in the Law but he has actually ENDORSED it.

You have also strawmanned the OP of why atheists reference the Mosaic Law to argue against Christianity onto Gods intolerance of the flaws found in his created beings (for which he is ultimately responsible for himself) - different topic

As for my faith - I was terribly insecure & lonely in my very early teens. A school mate invited me to a church youth group and they were very warm, friendly & welcoming and that was that. Felt the hand of God moving in my life, his word a pillar and framework to build my life upon, studied, preached, witnessed - all the good works, Even smuggled bibles into China.

Through my reading I noticed how we had cherry picked certain scriptures as not being socially contextual e.g. women needing to remain silent and the more I read the more confused I became. When I asked for guidance I was specifically told to not question. My response to that was, "Well if God gave me this brain I would be negligent to not use it to it's best capacity."

So I set forth to find answers to the apparent errors and inconsistencies that just kept cropping, up all the while thinking, "My God created this universe. He's big enough to deal with a few questions. He can provide all the answers I need coz my God is real." And you know what - he isn't....

theres at least three more that havent sinned; remember the fella that Jesus supposedly cured his blindness? Jesus states that he, nor his parents had sinned.

John 9:1-4 9 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

.....*Those who transgressed (& weren't summarily executed) were required to provide a covering for their sins through the sacrifice of various animals - doves, lambs, bulls etc depending on the nature & severity of their crime. This sacrifice was only a temporary covering and had to be repeated. It's all there - Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy* The sacrifice of Christ was just this - a covering of man's sins for all time. Hence the term Lamb of God, as well the covering of the blood at Passover to stop the wrath of God and so forth* So when a Christian refers to the new dispensation of Grace under Christ they are NOT in fact stating that the old laws have been done away with but that they were fulfilled in Christ's perfection, which is the only reason his sacrifice on the cross is sufficient to cover the sins of mankind (refer to Christ specifically stating that "not one jot or tittle of the Law would be changed").....

.....an excellent summation of Christianity and its relationship to the OT.

To both of you (one as a "current", one as a "past"!) would I therefore be correct if I said that the old laws are still in effect, and still displease Yahweh when people do not follow them, but that non-adherence to them in every respect is no longer an automatic bar to heaven? That - provided one believes in Christ and admits one's sin and is truly sorry for it - no individual sacrifice is required to atone for specific sins but that Christ's sacrifice covers them all?

A bit like....um.... actually, I can't think of an appropriate analogy. But would it be fair to say that - while Christians should not deliberately break OT laws, it they inadvertently do so then there it is "no harm, no foul" while they believe in Christ? (Thoughg depending on the actual sin concerned some earthly reparation to the people's wronged would be appropriate?)

Until the last point, an excellent summation of Christianity and its relationship to the OT.

Have you ever looked upon the acts written of in the OT as evidence that God really and truly cannot dwell with sin?

Also, on what basis, other than being told He did, did you believe God was real?

Can we assume that this quote is what you disagree with?

Quote

...hideous, brutal, savage, homophobic, misogynistic, genocidal, infanticidal laws laid down by bronze age sheepherders as they wandered around the Sinai desert

If so, we're all ears as to how you justify the actions of YHWH in the OT as anything other than what was quoted above. For example, how is killing all humans in a flood NOT genocidal? How is sending an army to slaughter babies NOT infanticidal? How is sending two bears to slaughter 42 children NOT brutal?

Feel free to read through the old thread Screwtape linked to in his usual friendly manner. My intent wasn't to re-engage on that level, but to ask one specific new member a couple of questions.

My point was that Christ didn't replace or nullify the Law. He needed to fulfill it. If he didn't his death achieved nothing. That's why God needed to incarnate himself as a man as only he was capable of meeting the impossile standards that he himself had set

I agree, although I am not certain that original sin was impossible to avoid. Certainly since sin and death first entered the world, yes.

So having come to earth as a man and fulfilled the law to in order that he might be able to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself he not only condones the killing, the maiming the subjugation of women, slavery and other acts of brutality found in the Law but he has actually ENDORSED it.

You'll have to further clarify what you mean with this: Are you saying that Jesus endorsed the fact that there were strict laws and regulations, or are you saying that Jesus declared those laws and regulations are required evermore?

You have also strawmanned the OP of why atheists reference the Mosaic Law to argue against Christianity onto Gods intolerance of the flaws found in his created beings (for which he is ultimately responsible for himself) - different topic

As for my faith - I was terribly insecure & lonely in my very early teens. A school mate invited me to a church youth group and they were very warm, friendly & welcoming and that was that. Felt the hand of God moving in my life, his word a pillar and framework to build my life upon, studied, preached, witnessed - all the good works, Even smuggled bibles into China.

Are you serious about the bible smuggling or was that a bit of hyperbole? I'm impressed either way.

So would it be correct to say that Christianity more filled an emotional need in your life than you recognised in your heart that you were a sinner separated from God the creator of the world, and in need of the salvation Jesus offers?

Through my reading I noticed how we had cherry picked certain scriptures as not being socially contextual e.g. women needing to remain silent and the more I read the more confused I became. When I asked for guidance I was specifically told to not question. My response to that was, "Well if God gave me this brain I would be negligent to not use it to it's best capacity."

Sounds like you had a really shitty church environment then. Of course you should question.

So I set forth to find answers to the apparent errors and inconsistencies that just kept cropping, up all the while thinking, "My God created this universe. He's big enough to deal with a few questions. He can provide all the answers I need coz my God is real." And you know what - he isn't....

You came to the conclusion God wasn't real based on more than some questions of biblical context and relevance, I assume?

He needed to fulfill it. If he didn't his death achieved nothing. That's why God needed to incarnate himself as a man as only he was capable of meeting the impossile standards that he himself had set (all have sinned, none are righteous - except for Job, Abraham, Lot & Noah but we won't go there).

There is some doubt about how to translate the "fulfil" on the end of Matt 5:17. Christians who believed Paul, would be most likely to tamper with its meaning. But Matthew wasn't written by people who believed Paul. The people who wrote Matthew would think it was a bizarre idea that Jesus magically transformed the law by dying.